DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The applicants amended the claims to remove the recitation that the method “further comprising” exposing the substrate to plasma.
The claims now merely recite “wherein exposing substrate to plasma increases a volatility” (claim 12) and “wherein … exposing substrate to plasma reduces the concentration” (claim 20).
As a result, it is not clear whether or not the claimed method requires exposing the substrate to plasma.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12, 19-22, 24, 26-28, 35-37, 43-44, 47-49 and 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nardi et al (WO 2021/067632, US 2022/0365434, citations by the US document).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Nardi et al teach a method for controlling a metal contamination as claimed.
The method comprises:
Processing a front surface of the substrate and heating the substrate as claimed.
The processing comprises developing of photoresist that is formed by wet deposition (at least [0013-22], [0102], [0109]).
The development is disclosed as a dry processing using halogen containing chemistry (at least [0202-211].
The heating is disclosed as exposure to the claimed temperatures for the claimed duration (at least [0216], [0219], [0222-223).
The heating is disclosed as exposure to the claimed gas (at least [0219]).
The method also comprises exposing the substrate to plasma as claimed (at least [0219]).
The method also comprises exposure of the substrate to a light (at least {0054], [0199-200]).
The method further comprises purging and sweeping the processing chamber as claimed (at least [0216-219], [0299-302]).
Nardi et al also disclose tin as a metal (at least [0007], [0011-12], [0026], [0031], [0137]).
The method further comprises cleaning of the processing chamber with a plasma comprising hydrogen radicals at claimed parameters (at least [0202-204]).
Since the method of Nardi et al comprises the claimed steps the results of the application of the method of Nardi et al would be inherently the same or the invention is not disclosed/claimed with the correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
As to claims 19-20, 47 and 48:
Since the method of WO 2020/0264571 comprises the claimed steps the results of the application of the method of WO 2020/0264571 would be inherently the same or the invention is not disclosed/claimed with the correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi et al (WO 2021/067632, US 2022/0365434, citations by the US document).
Nardi et al, as applied above, teach a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the performing processing in the first chamber and heating in the second chamber.
However, since Nardi et al teach the apparatus with multiple chambers for different processings, such as development and the other one for processings (at least [0258]), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to conduct the steps of the method of Nardi et al in the different chambers.
Claim(s) 23, 29-31 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi et al (WO 2021/067632, US 2022/0365434, citations by the US document) in view of WO 2020/0264571.
As to claim 23:
Nardi et al teach a method as claimed except for the use of IR and LED sources as heaters. However, WO 2020/0264571 teaches that it was known to use the referenced sources as heaters in the semiconductor processing (at least [0106], [0122]).
Iit would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize the disclosed by WO 2020/0264571 heaters to heat the substrate in the method of Nardi et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
As to claim 29-31:
Nardi et al teach a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the wet clean. Nardi et al teach backside and bevel region cleaning (at least [0024]), but do not exemplify the wet cleaning.
However, WO 2020/0264571 teaches that it was known to conduct wet clean backside and bevel regions (at least [0062]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use the wet cleaning recited by WO 2020/0264571 in the method of Nardi et al in order to use a known process for its known purpose.
As to claim 30:
Since the modified method of Nardi et al comprises the claimed steps the results of the application of the method of Nardi et al would be inherently the same or the invention is not disclosed/claimed with the correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim(s) 32-33, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi et al (WO 2021/067632, US 2022/0365434, citations by the US document) in view of WO 2020/0264571, and further in view of in view any one of Nelson (US 2014/0206200) and Rogojina et al (US 2011/0028000).
Modified Nardi et al as applied above teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of dilute HF, dilute HCl or SC1 (standard clean 1).
However, it appears that the applicants claim the use of conventional wet cleaning.
The cleaning solutions recited by the claims were well known cleaning solutions of the RCA cleaning and a number of the modified RCA semiconductor substrate cleaning methods. The referenced solutions are even known to an ordinary artisan by their industry names, such SC1, SC2, HPM, RCA1, RCA2, etc.
The above is also evidenced by of Nelson (at least [0015-16]) and Rogojina et al (at least [0038]), which teach that the use of claimed solutions, the claimed sequence, the claimed duration were known in the art of the substrate cleaning.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize wet cleaning methods known in the art (as evidenced by Nelson and Rogojina et al) with the known solutions in the known sequence, duration and at the known temperatures in the method of Nardi et al in order to have the substrates cleaned.
As to claim 46, which also recites the specific flow rate:
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find the optimum rate of the cleaning solution by routine experimentation depending from the size of the substrate, construction of the equipment and the specifics of the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and state that the amended claims are allowable over the art.
The amended claims have been examined.
The rejections applied on the previous Office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims.
However, the amended claims are not found allowable for the reasons presented above.
The amended claims have been examined and are the subject of the rejections applied above.
The teaching of Nardi et al alone and in combination with other documents has been used to reject the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to methods for processing substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711